Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Deeje]

Yes, I do.

A. You don't because you haven't taken the time to do even a most rudimentary search.
B. You don't because you don't want to see any advances.
C. Both of the above.

You crack me up.

You certainly live up to your username......

Let's see what even a rudimentary search reveals......?

"Abiogenesis – Students should know basic problems a successful hypothesis must overcome. Arguably the most important problem area in the development of life is the origin of the first biological cell from nonliving chemicals. That is because a living and reproducing cell is required before evolution can get started. This origin of the first cell is often referred to as abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a fascinating problem that has been awaiting a solution for decades. Most textbooks and these supplements pass lightly over the problem and simply leave the students ignorant of why the problem exists. Over time a few solution attempts have been advanced and one or another of these is often found in textbooks. But it is universally recognized that these attempts are woefully inadequate. For example New Scientist magazine quotes the famed professor Paul Davies saying, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”(1) Our students should be given a basic understanding of why this is and an acquaintance with the most important issues that must be dealt with by a successful hypothesis explaining the origin of the first cells from naturally occurring nonliving chemicals. The first cell requires a complex system of coordinated molecules that work together like the parts of a machine to metabolize the surrounding sources of energy and regularly reproduce the system before any form of evolution can start taking place. In all known life forms the complex of machines are largely composed of systems of protein machines with a control system that enables orderly operation of the machines and the system’s self-replication. The control system is embodied in the cell’s DNA. A few of the more important elements of this abiogenesis problem are discussed briefly below."

http://txsed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2011-Testimony-Part-5-Abiogenesis.pdf

Here is another one....

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

Tell me how close they are to solving the problem of how life began?.....have you done the research?

 

[osgart]

This board has two extremes illogical naturalism, and fantastical religiosity.

Im in the middle , i accept that intelligence causes life, but the intelligence is of nature, and not supernatural or other worldly, nor divine.

And yes that is my honest position.

 

[ArtieE]

You crack me up.

You certainly live up to your username......

Let's see what even a rudimentary search reveals......?

"Abiogenesis – Students should know basic problems a successful hypothesis must overcome. Arguably the most important problem area in the development of life is the origin of the first biological cell from nonliving chemicals. That is because a living and reproducing cell is required before evolution can get started. This origin of the first cell is often referred to as abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a fascinating problem that has been awaiting a solution for decades. Most textbooks and these supplements pass lightly over the problem and simply leave the students ignorant of why the problem exists. Over time a few solution attempts have been advanced and one or another of these is often found in textbooks. But it is universally recognized that these attempts are woefully inadequate. For example New Scientist magazine quotes the famed professor Paul Davies saying, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”(1) Our students should be given a basic understanding of why this is and an acquaintance with the most important issues that must be dealt with by a successful hypothesis explaining the origin of the first cells from naturally occurring nonliving chemicals. The first cell requires a complex system of coordinated molecules that work together like the parts of a machine to metabolize the surrounding sources of energy and regularly reproduce the system before any form of evolution can start taking place. In all known life forms the complex of machines are largely composed of systems of protein machines with a control system that enables orderly operation of the machines and the system’s self-replication. The control system is embodied in the cell’s DNA. A few of the more important elements of this abiogenesis problem are discussed briefly below."

http://txsed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2011-Testimony-Part-5-Abiogenesis.pdf

Here is another one....

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

Tell me how close they are to solving the problem of how life began?.....have you done the research?

Here are some interesting articles. A lot more interesting and educational and informative than Genesis don't you think?
Abiogenesis: A Theory on The Origins of Life
ESD - Abstract - Thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life

 

[ecco]

Let's see what even a rudimentary search reveals......?

"Abiogenesis – Students should know basic problems a successful hypothesis must overcome. Arguably the most important problem area in the development of life is the origin of the first biological cell from nonliving chemicals.
<snip>
A few of the more important elements of this abiogenesis problem are discussed briefly below."
http://txsed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2011-Testimony-Part-5-Abiogenesis.pdf

What is your problem? The article pretty clearly states the current status of knowledge regarding abiogensis. It shows there are still many questions that need to be resolved. It goes on to say...

(emphasis mine)

These are some of the basic problems that must be overcome to develop a potentially successful hypothesis explaining the origin of the first cells from nonliving chemical in a natural environment. ... It is interesting that the history of science shows with surprising frequency that the most intractable problems are often solved by the innovation of fresh young minds. Perhaps knowledge of these issues will prompt a young Texas student to pursue science and eventually provide the needed innovation. Without a doubt anyone who makes a major step forward on the abiogenesis problem will win a Nobel Prize. In any event all biology students need to have a basic knowledge of the basic difficulties involved in the abiogenesis problem in order to be considered reasonably educated in biology.​

It makes the case that true science education is necessary to solve problems.

I don't have a problem with anything in the article.

The fact that you posted this article to show that abiogenesis must be wrong just shows how poor your reading skills are.

Did you maybe see this part...

If only random events are at work there will be one chance in 20400, or about 10520, of obtaining the specific protein sequence needed. This number is so large it is difficult to comprehend.... At present there is no reasonable way known to overcome the immense improbability of a random unguided process producing a protein system like this even under ideal conditions.​

...and go "Wee, I gotcha!"

Did you then not read a little further...

This is a major problem and a fascinating opportunity for young scientists.

​

You really should stick to quoting from sources that clearly, in simplistic English, try to support your views.

 

[ecco]

You crack me up.

You certainly live up to your username......

What do you suppose my username means?

 

[SkepticThinker]

IMO your own assertions are not logical. Can you show me how these....

Came from these.....?

Please give us a detailed description of how science "knows" that this isn't a bigger fairy story than what you think we believe....?

So your answer to my assertion that you're making a fallacious argument from incredulity, is to make another argument from incredulity?

You've been provided a ton of evidence demonstrating common descent, over and over again on these threads. Perhaps you should have paid attention to it.

Do you have any non-fallacious arguments to make?

Your attempt at deflection is duly noted.

Actually, I'm telling you that his interpretation is a response to two conflicting ideas that he reconciled in his own mind in order to retain and accommodate both. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because his own words contradict your claim.

He works with the evidences of evolution on a daily basis. Evidence isn’t as easy to brush off as you seem to think it is. Then again, you’re not that good with identifying evidence to begin with.

I am well aware of those who want to have a foot in both camps. IMO it betrays a complete lack of faith in God and an attempt to gain credibility with both camps without having to declare a position one way or the other. It is a wimp's position IMO.

Again, you have said that evolution and atheism go hand in hand.

Well obviously they do not, given that there are plenty of religious people who accept evolutionary theory and give credit to God(s) for designing it. You can try to explain it away with No True Scotsman fallacies all you like. But you’re just making yet another fallacious argument.

Except, by the time the demonstration happens.....it might be a bit late.

I have tried to warn you.

You’ll have to excuse me for not taking that very seriously. You guys have been making such empty claims for thousands of years now.

What a great excuse to never have to provide any evidence though! “Oh you guys just wait, you’ll find out one day.” That’s enough to make me laugh out loud.

I think my arguments hold water just fine, judging by the amount of traffic on these threads. The "no true Scotsman" argument also holds water because the criteria for a Christian I imagine is much the same as the criteria for a scientist. Just calling yourself one, doesn't make you one, now does it?

Fallacious and illogical arguments don’t hold any water. Keep making those, and your arguments will never hold any water.

So you think you’re able to discern the true Christians from the fakes, do you? That’s absurd. Are you God? There are some people who would say that you’re not a true Christian. So please tell me, how can a person tell who is a real Christian, and who isn’t? Do I just have to ask Deeje? Do you realize how arrogant that sounds?

"Many Christians" are going to be awfully disappointed when the judge asks them how faithfully they defended the Creator when those who wanted him dead filled their heads with all manner of ridiculous nonsense. I'll let Jesus sort that one out...in the meantime whilst you wait, you can work on providing more than empty comments on these threads....that would be nice.

So you say but without any way to tell if this is actually true or not, it’s just an empty claim.

What are you going to do when the great battle for Ragnarok unfolds and the world is submerged under water, killing everyone, until Odin and Thor rise again, and the last two remaining humans can re-populate the world? Think about how afraid you are of that happening, and you’ll understand why I’m not to worried about your threats of judgment day. Maybe you’ll be the one to be disappointed in the end, because, much like you, I hear other Christians declare that people who believe what you believe are actually the fake Christians. For all I know, they could be right. Hmm, it’s almost like we need some way of testing and demonstrating the various claims that people make. Hmmmm.

Empty comments? Oh dear, you seem to be projecting again.

You're wrong about that because he left an instruction manual.....we all know how some people think they don't need one and then wonder why nothing fits.

So did some other Gods you apparently don’t believe in. Why aren’t you a Muslim?

You can't disprove his existence either.

I can’t disprove the existence of Big Foot either. That doesn’t mean I have to believe he exists until someone disproves his existence. If this is the way it worked, we’d have to believe in every single thing anybody ever proposed, until somebody could disprove it. That would be silly. And you’re even going beyond this. You’re saying not only does Big Foot exist, but that you know all kinds of details about his personal life and his thoughts and feelings without ever being able to manage to demonstrate his existence in the first place.

If you’re making a claim that a thing exists, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. If I want to be a rational, logical person (and I do) then I will disbelieve claims until they are demonstrated to be true. You’ve been making a lot of claims, but have provided little in the way of proof.

The Bible is ancient, but it tells us about things that are happening in the world right now. It is not just a book about time periods but about human nature and you know what? It never goes out of date. Human beings don't change, which is why their behavior is so predictable.

No it doesn’t. It was quite obviously written in, and for a particular period in time. This is demonstrated by the fact that the people who wrote it were quite limited in their knowledge of the world, relative to what we know about it now.

Unfortunately, human nature doesn’t appear to have drastically changed all that much, though thankfully, our views have changed quite a bit over time. So some of those aspects of the Bible would still ring true today, just as much as those aspects of Shakespeare’s plays or Machiavelli’s writings still ring true all these years later.

With all the comments on these threads, where is the evidence that evolution, on the scale of amoebas to dinosaurs, ever happened except in the imagination of those who want to take science fact into the realms of science fiction?

So you’re going to stick the with the argument from incredulity then?

I think that would be logical, don't you? We agree with God and he agrees with us.....if you don't agree with either of us, then that is entirely up to you.

No, you kind of missed the point there. That being that you’re projecting your beliefs, thoughts and feelings onto the God that you want to worship. Which would explain the existence of so many different religions, and so many denominations within those religions.

 

[Deeje]

Here are some interesting articles. A lot more interesting and educational and informative than Genesis don't you think?
Abiogenesis: A Theory on The Origins of Life

"Notably, at this point, the ideas are highly speculative. However, don’t read the last sentence and assume that it means that the ideas are unscientific or baseless conjecture (please, read the linked articles for more information on these theories). Moreover, the theoretical results are (hereto) considered valid. The interpretation is where some think the speculation is rather high (the interpretation is the assertion that his formula represents the driving force behind the formation of life). Yet, there are already ideas about how we might test this in a lab."

Yep. Heaven forbid that anyone reading that bit of wishful thinking would ever reach the conclusion that these "ideas are unscientific or baseless conjecture"....?

ESD - Abstract - Thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life

"Abstract. Understanding the thermodynamic function of life may shed light on its origin. Life, as are all irreversible processes, is contingent on entropy production. Entropy production is a measure of the rate of the tendency of Nature to explore available microstates. The most important irreversible process generating entropy in the biosphere and, thus, facilitating this exploration, is the absorption and transformation of sunlight into heat. Here we hypothesize that life began, and persists today, as a catalyst for the absorption and dissipation of sunlight on the surface of Archean seas. The resulting heat could then be efficiently harvested by other irreversible processes such as the water cycle, hurricanes, and ocean and wind currents. RNA and DNA are the most efficient of all known molecules for absorbing the intense ultraviolet light that penetrated the dense early atmosphere and are remarkably rapid in transforming this light into heat in the presence of liquid water. From this perspective, the origin and evolution of life, inseparable from water and the water cycle, can be understood as resulting from the natural thermodynamic imperative of increasing the entropy production of the Earth in its interaction with its solar environment. A mechanism is proposed for the reproduction of RNA and DNA without the need for enzymes, promoted instead through UV light dissipation and diurnal temperature cycling of the Archean sea-surface."

Again.....speculation replaces any real evidence for what they claim. We have their "perspective" and a "proposed mechanism" from a pre-conceived notion.

So....what do we have in these links really....? Anything outside of educated guesswork? Science is no further forward in explaining the origin of life than they ever were. They just try to give the impression that life can pop into existence spontaneously as the result of nothing but random forces of blind chance....life is nothing but a fluke, and so the 'flukes' that became dinosaurs, (where science has no evidence for how that supposedly happened,) requires no "belief" whatsoever....? Seriously......

C'mon....

 

[Deeje]

What is your problem? The article pretty clearly states the current status of knowledge regarding abiogensis.

Yep....they are as far away from solving this dilemma as they were 100 years ago. Science cannot make anything "live"....not even a blade of grass.

They can put together all the "soup" they want but it will never produce life from something non-living.

You really should stick to quoting from sources that clearly, in simplistic English, try to support your views.

You mean like you do?

What do you suppose my username means?

.....its obviously deep and meaningful....like your responses.

 

[Deeje]

You've been provided a ton of evidence demonstrating common descent, over and over again on these threads. Perhaps you should have paid attention to it.

I did, and if you read through my posts, you will see that I just love links to "scientific evidence" because they are so transparent if you read them more carefully. Unless you have your perceptions changed to accept baseless speculation as "evidence" you will hang onto their wishful thinking like its truth.

Do you have any non-fallacious arguments to make?

Do you?

Do you have irrefutable evidence that dinosaurs are the result of evolutionary processes that started with nothing more than an 'accidental' living cell popping up out of nowhere for no apparent reason and resulting in all the lifeforms we see on earth, both past and present? They just "happened" like the universe and the habitats on this once void planet that also just happened to provide all the necessary elements to perpetually support all this life? How many 'unplanned accidents' would it take to get here, do you think? Where is your proof for all these 'unplanned accidents'? I haven't seen any.

He works with the evidences of evolution on a daily basis. Evidence isn’t as easy to brush off as you seem to think it is. Then again, you’re not that good with identifying evidence to begin with.

Exactly! Collins already had his mind programmed by the science with which he was indoctrinated, so when something 'unexplainable' happened to cause doubt, he merely fused the two together in order to accommodate both science and God. It is not uncommon. A foot in both camps is sort of like "insurance" for people like him. It is also handy if you want to keep your job.

You can try to explain it away with No True Scotsman fallacies all you like.

That applies to "no true scientist" too doesn't it? You can call yourself one, but it really doesn't mean much if you have no belief in what science teaches. If your job is to teach something that you believe is false, then that just makes you a hypocrite. A foot in both camps is merely a rationalization....like a lot of science, it only works in theory.

You’ll have to excuse me for not taking that very seriously. You guys have been making such empty claims for thousands of years now.

What a great excuse to never have to provide any evidence though! “Oh you guys just wait, you’ll find out one day.” That’s enough to make me laugh out loud.

Something about "he who laughs last" comes to mind. If nothing, the story of Noah should make people think twice. Noah did not convince a single person to listen to his warning.....history repeats you know. (Matthew 24:37-39)

Fallacious and illogical arguments don’t hold any water. Keep making those, and your arguments will never hold any water.

Your own arguments don't hold any water. Show us the evidence for what goes beyond adaptation.....please.
Show us how it does not require "belief" or "faith" in what other humans say.

So you think you’re able to discern the true Christians from the fakes, do you? That’s absurd. Are you God? There are some people who would say that you’re not a true Christian. So please tell me, how can a person tell who is a real Christian, and who isn’t? Do I just have to ask Deeje? Do you realize how arrogant that sounds?

The criteria is in the Bible. People can read about what it means to be a Christian and judge for themselves if they meet it...they don't have to answer to me.

So did some other Gods you apparently don’t believe in. Why aren’t you a Muslim?

I am not Muslim because I follow the God of Abraham through the line of Isaac and Jacob...not Ishmael. Jews and Muslims portend to worship the same God but they got lost along the way. Christendom has invented her own strange version of God.

If you’re making a claim that a thing exists, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. If I want to be a rational, logical person (and I do) then I will disbelieve claims until they are demonstrated to be true. You’ve been making a lot of claims, but have provided little in the way of proof.

I can say the same about you. I have yet to see anything about macro-evolution that wasn't pure speculation.

So you’re going to stick the with the argument from incredulity then?

And you are going to stick to your version of events with as little actual proof for what you believe as I do.

As I say...we have a stalemate...not a checkmate. One of us will ultimately have to concede at some point in the future. All we can do is wait and find out.

 

[ecco]

Yep....they are as far away from solving this dilemma as they were 100 years ago.

If you say that, your are either outright lying or you are ignorant of the scientific advances of the past 100. Probably both.

• The structure of DNA and RNA.
• The structure of protein chains.
• The structure of the atom.

All of which brings us closer to understanding the essence of abiogenesis.


But it really makes no difference. You are still in the dark ages regarding ToE. You will never accept anything that conflicts with your Creo beliefs.

 

[gnostic]

You keep saying that "evolutionists" have to be atheistic. I've just given you a very good example of an "evolutionist" who identifies as a born-again Christian, thus negating your assertion.

I have provided examples in Darwin’s days, that some of those who accepted his theory on evolution through natural selection, were colleagues and Christians, hence theists, but she have ignored that.

Which tell us she is very selective in choosing who are “atheists”, and really a load of craps.

 

[ArtieE]

Again.....speculation replaces any real evidence for what they claim. We have their "perspective" and a "proposed mechanism" from a pre-conceived notion.

So....what do we have in these links really....?

We have their perspective and a proposed mechanism and theists only have "some god(s) did it." I'll take their perspective any day over the theist perspective since not once has the theist proposed mechanism been shown to be correct while medical science has saved my life.

 

[Deeje]

If you say that, your are either outright lying or you are ignorant of the scientific advances of the past 100. Probably both.

• The structure of DNA and RNA.
• The structure of protein chains.
• The structure of the atom.

All of which brings us closer to understanding the essence of abiogenesis.

Please see post #1207 above. They are not even close because no scientist will ever create life. They will just keep hitting the same wall.

Life is not an accident.

But it really makes no difference. You are still in the dark ages regarding ToE. You will never accept anything that conflicts with your Creo beliefs.

Tell me how you are any different? You accept what science tells you without any real proof that what they suggest is even possible. You are so sure......and yet, so am I. You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but don't tell me science has the answers when it is clear that they haven't even scratched the surface in their excursions into abiogenesis.

As for the structure of DNA and RNA and the structure of protein chains......

Since the blueprint for building a protein is stored in the nucleus of the cell and the actual site for building proteins is outside the nucleus, help is needed to get the coded blueprint from the nucleus to the “building site.” RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules provide this help. RNA molecules are chemically similar to those of DNA, and several forms of RNA are needed to do the job. Take a closer look at these extremely complex processes for making our vital proteins with the help of RNA.

Science knows what an incredibly complex process the formation of protein is. How long does it take for a chain of 20 amino acids to form? About one second! And this process goes on constantly in our body cells, from our head to our foot and everywhere in between.

While other factors too numerous to mention are involved, the teamwork needed to produce and maintain life is awe-inspiring. And the term “teamwork” hardly describes the precise interaction required to produce a protein molecule, since a protein needs information from DNA molecules, and DNA needs several forms of specialized RNA molecules. Nor can we ignore the various enzymes, each performing a distinct and vital role. As our body makes new cells, which happens billions of times a day and without our conscious guidance, it requires copies of all three components—DNA, RNA, and protein. You can see why the magazine New Scientist comments: “Take away any one of the three and life grinds to a halt.” Or take this a step further. Without a complete and functioning team, life could not have come about.

(Excerpts Teamwork for Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY)

 

[Deeje]

I have provided examples in Darwin’s days, that some of those who accepted his theory on evolution through natural selection, were colleagues and Christians, hence theists, but she have ignored that.

Which tell us she is very selective in choosing who are “atheists”, and really a load of craps.

Gnostic....how come some of your posts are well written and appear to come from someone familiar with science and then we get these ones that look like it was written by a five year old?

Are you copying other people's work?

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic....how come some of your posts are well written and appear to come from someone familiar with science and then we get these ones that look like it was written by a five year old?

Are you copying other people's work?

I am not copying anyone’s work, but I do generally remember the gists of what I read. So I worded what I can remember in my own way.

And some works that I do remember I have not touched and seen in years.

Like my cousin’s biology textbook I borrowed back in 2003-04. When I first joined a forum, I did not know what evolution about, and I did not understand the debates between the two sides (science and creation). So i relied on textbook for my knowledge on evolution, but it certainly don’t make me a biology student, let alone expert.

It doesn’t make me “evolutionist”, the label you like using. I am no more an evolutionist than I am a bible-ist.

Believe or not, Genesis is my favourite book out of the whole bible. But I treated in the 18 years as a work of literature, no different from the Epic of Gilgamesh and Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, and Snorri’s Prose Edda. The bible contained some fascinating stories, which I used to believe in, but I now know contain very little facts. They are just stories that I still like to read, just as I like to read the Trojan War or the stories of Sigurd and Beowulf, or the wondrous adventures of Thor and Loki.

But what you are trying to deflect with your total lack of honesty, by generalising everyone who accept evolution, not only as being “evolutionists”, but everyone as “atheists”, even those who are Christians and Jews.

You have this conspiracy theorist’s mentality that anyone who disagree with you, are evolutionists, and “atheists”, including Christians and Jews.

 

[Deeje]

We have their perspective and a proposed mechanism and theists only have "some god(s) did it." I'll take their perspective any day over the theist perspective since not once has the theist proposed mechanism been shown to be correct while medical science has saved my life.

Can you tell me how theists can present a proposed mechanism that is shown to be correct when there is no "mechanism" provided by the Creator apart from the logical notion that what exhibits complex design, has to have a designer? He just informed us "that" he did it....not "how" he did it. Would we comprehend it anyway?

The last time I checked, science had no proposed mechanism that has been shown to be anything but speculation? You can no more provide evidence for the process of organic evolution that I can produce a Creator.
We both rely on faith in the words of others.

Do you have a proven mechanism by which amoebas can be transformed into creatures the size of a multi-story building? I would like to see that evidence.

You credit medical science with saving your life.....isn't that what its supposed to do? What about all the people who can't say that medical science has given them a better quality of life? What about the cancer patients who die the most awful deaths because medical science still uses poisonous chemicals that attack a weakened body with an already compromised immune system? The only hope a body has of recovery is not unnatural chemically based drugs, but natural products that work to restore that immune system. Orthodox medicine seems to want to ignore that very relevant fact.

 

[Audie]

The only hope a body has of recovery is not unnatural chemically based drugs, but natural products that work to restore that immune system. Orthodox medicine seems to want to ignore that very relevant fact.

As has been noted before:

You have this conspiracy theorist’s mentality

the line in bold is, like, totally diagnostic.
Chemtrails too? Vaccines cause autism?

 

[Audie]

Do you have a proven mechanism by which amoebas can be transformed into creatures the size of a multi-story building? I would like to see that evidence.

.

We see over and over and over again from the creos the question phrased above as how do you get "amoeba to multi-story size animals".

Of course, it could also be about "single cell algae to redwood". Those are more like multi story buildings, and bigger than any animal.

The progress from single to multi cellular is even easier to trace in plants than animals.

IF there is such a thing as an actually curious creo who
would like to understand the science it is not that
hard to understand.

Is there any interest in understanding?

I see the pro-forma and phony question "Do you have a proven mechanism by which amoebas can be transformed into creatures the size of a multi-story building? I would like to see that evidence."
That somehow does not look like sincere interest in understanding.

Why phony?
1-a person who is interested would not ask in a forum.
They might have even taken bio 101.

2- "Proven". Nothing in science is ever "proven".
So the q is seriously ignorant, and of course, tossing
"proven" in is a way to make sure nobody can give a qualifying answer.

3. last, "amoeba". Is that said in ignorance, or is it deliberate?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you have a proven mechanism by which amoebas can be transformed into creatures the size of a multi-story building? I would like to see that evidence.

Every time a living thing reproduces, it grows from an inert collection of chemicals, to cells, to a collection of cells, to a full body. This is observed literally every time something reproduces.

Were you not aware of this?

 

[Audie]

Every time a living thing reproduces, it grows from an inert collection of chemicals, to cells, to a collection of cells, to a full body. This is observed literally every time something reproduces.

Were you not aware of this?

That is part of it. Here is another part
filamentous algae - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results

Each cell can live independently, or as part of a colony. Step one in
going from single to multicellular.

IF our creos can accept that much, we could go to step two.

But I kinda think the response would be some sort of snarky attack
rather than actual interest or curiosity.